Okay… I may be swamped but there are limits to what I can tolerate in other DMs.
Heather’s been comparing her experience with her Game Day DMs and what she is reading in the DMG (she is a newbie RPGer and wants to try her hand at DMing.
However as she reads, she is getting strong cognitive dissonances from the 2 Dms she observed.
Aside: We’re all behind you on that Heather! You can jump in with little to no experience… I did when I was 10 and had played only 3-4 games.
Witness this musings of hers:
WTF is with the XP? Both DMs (Fumbles and Bumbles) were weird about XP. They awarded XP according to who actually hit the monster. If you took a swing at the monster, you were awarded XP. If you did not take a swing at that particular monster because you were busy flanking another monster, you did not get XP for the monster you did not actually hit. The DMs did not actually track who hit which monster so this method of XP rewarding became rather silly as people had to try to piece together who hit what.
Additionally, there was a lot of complaining about how unfair this type of XP rewarding was to melee characters. Ranged characters could get a whack on all monsters on the field where melee could not. This would give ranged characters a huge advantage. I questioned why you would divide the XP in this way. Each person there helped overcome the obstacle in some way, therefore should be granted equal XP. The players would all advance at the same rate and no advantage would be given to a particular type of player (ranged).
I wanted to say that they were doing XP weird because there needed to be a winner of the scenario so that a prize could be awarded. However, Fumbles and Bumbles tried to explain why equal division of XP would not work – a point I completely missed. I later read the DMG which says “simply divide the xp total for the encounter by the number of characters present” on page 41. In this case, I will thumb my nose at their stupidity because they made a big issue over nothing and in doing so may have warded off a couple people on the fence about 4th Edition.
Remember when I called these DMs incompetants and Graham called them idiots?
This is worse.. this is DMs with a very perverted notion of the rule of fun. These guys give DMs a bad name. This is the exact opposite of my philosophy. I don’t deny DMs their authority (if it is earned and used judiciously) but this is just plain stupid. XPs to PCs who hit monsters…
These DMs are trolls.
So my debate question is thus. How do you deal with DMs like that? Are they within their rights to impose their vision of the the game like that be it at a convention or with their buddies?
How do you deal with them when they are your DMs? How do you deal with them when you hear them boast about thier ‘realistic’ house rules in game shops?
Arghh!!!
Lol! Bahahaha my evil plan to take over Chatty’s blog is moving along smoothly. 😀 (Kidding).
Heathers last blog post..D&D Nerdery – Kick Em When They’re Down
You are quite the minion heather. PM should start to fear for his position as my right hand man.
I forgot to link to your post… corrected.
Concurance!…such DMs are just plain stupid…I remember having a DM who was just a complete power tripper early in my gaming years…he was an “instigator” (dick) as a player and would refuse to listen to any rational argument in-game, often resulting in triumphant moments of luck being teabagged down by the DMs need to dominate the situation (screams before I slit his throat my ass)…the best way to deal with a DM like this is not to play with him…
As far as at cons…it really sucks getting a DM like that, as there’s not much you can do when you sign up for a game…but at events, DMs should play by the book…if the DM wishes to implement certain house rules he needs to notify the players before the game starts and apply them only if the players agree to them…
Yep…
Absolutely ridiculous. “House rules” like those are good ways to turn new gamers off of D&D. I read some similarly odd experiences over on Gnome Stew. I just don’t get it. I suppose some people don’t realize that D&D is a collaborative exercise between the players and the DM. It isn’t a dictatorship. A DM is more or less defined by his or her group. Happy and engaged players? Good DM. Confused and frustrated players? Bad DM.
Regardless… as to your question about how to deal with such DMs. It’s easy: you make your point by objecting in a rational manner. No effect? You tell them in a not-so-diplomatic fashion that they’re idiots, are ruining the game for new players with arbitrary lunacy and clearly need to read the damn rules. A DM who cannot gauge with a glance the mood of his or her players should not be DM’ing. Things won’t always go well, but I can’t imagine any players at said Game Day were enjoying that xp breakdown “mechanic.”
Sigh.
I believe I need to add the adjective “fucking” to my calling them idiots.
Before we all degenerate in flaming such DMs… I need to point out that many many Roleplayers are of the ‘mastermind’ type on the Myers Briggs index and such people usually have a hard time reading emotions and feelings in others.
That doesn’t automatically make them bad DM… it just makes DMing more challenging for them though.
So saying that they are hopeless jerks that should read people better is a bit of an easy out IMHO.
That being said… both Fumbles and Bumbles are Bad in my book.
I don’t know if you saw the comment I made on Heather’s blog (and I wouldn’t blame anyone for not reading it… I’m a big long-winded at times…), but one of my friends had a great solution for the “I have a DM who awards XP this way.” portion of this riddle. He made fighter/barbarian/whatever. Said character had low mental stats, and always did the stupidest thing possible. “A door? I bash it down.” His character got all (or, at least, a lion’s share of) the XP because he was a part of everything. I don’t know if the DM eventually dropped this rule or not, but my friend proved that he could “win” at the game…
For the most part, in a game shop or whatever, I’ll ignore those DMs. Mostly because, explicit expressed or not, every gaming group has a social contract. And, if you don’t like the way your DM works, you find another DM. As much as their are frequently too few DMs, I’m often surprised by how many people play (I recently found out that one of my coworkers plays D&D… I’ve only been at this job for about 7 months, but it was still like “Huh…”). It’s not as easy in a setting like WWDDGD, but if I had noticed something like at one of the other tables, and I hadn’t been busy keeping my problem player in line, I probably would have had a discussion with any of the players from that table after the game. I don’t like treading on other people’s styles, but I do like people (players, in this case) to know that that’s either (a) not how it’s usually done or (b) at the very least, not how everyone does it (ie: not how *I* do it).
Before game day, I got together with a couple of the other DMs, and discussed rules and interpretations and played through 4e a little, so the three of us at least knew that we were on approximately the same page, and I think that worked out well. I really think that something like that should take place before large group roleplaying thing, that way there’s no “I wish I’d been at *that* table, the DM at my table sucked” type stuff, and let’s the other DMs reign in the House-Rule-Happy DMs to at least some degree, or anticipate what the other DMs may be trying at their table, which could also give the organizer a chance to “heads-up” any player as they come in, in case the DM forgets to. 😉
Makes me wish I had someone who could anonymously critique my DMing on a blog and be like “Wow, if this guy wouldn’t do X he’d be so much better…” Unfortunately, my players are all my friends, so I have to wonder if they’re just being nice when they say I’m doing a good job. Or maybe they just don’t want to say I’m not because they don’t want the job. 😀
@Felonius –
I like to think that my players are all honest about that stuff with me. I got some good validation when 3 of the players I DMed for at our 4e event (Damian, Albert, Esteban) searched out my blog (my fiancee only mentioned it in passing, and I mentioned I was Twittering about things once) and commented on the fact they really enjoyed the game!
There’s also the option of having players like me in your group. We’re the really blunt ones, with no qualms about telling you if you’re being an idiot.
Not everyone can deal with players like me. I accept that as a given. 😛
@Graham
I prefer blunt players. I’d rather not continue down the wrong path when it’s correctable…
I like to think that my usual group thinks of me as a good DM… They all have at least 30 minute commutes (and one (admittedly my cousin, but still) who drives about an hour and a half) to come play at my table… Also, I don’t punish good tactics, or seek revenge if they kill pet creatures. Though I did upset them a bit when they fought the Half-Red-Dragon Troll with a ring of minor acid resistance…. and they didn’t discover it was a ring of acid resistance until a few minutes after they’d walked away from the troll, thinking it dead…. They’ll be fighting him again later, and at a much less opportune time. 😉
All told, I *think* they enjoy it, and they *say* they enjoy it… and they keep coming back, despite gas prices and the commute… So I must be doing *something* right. Right?
Ah, the Myers-Briggs…I remember I came out as an inventor…which I suppose explains my ability to come up with genius things at random, but having great difficulty with weaving such ideas into a coherent flow…as a DM at least…
Also, blunt players are good…for the longest time I didn’t know what my resident lurker thought of my campaign or certain house rules I’d implemented…although I suppose I’d avoid the idiocy accusation on account of my lawyery/philosophical training in debate, combined with a forced lack of stubbornness…
Good times…
I’m of the opinion that house rules are meant to speed the game up, or give more options, what they did provided neither. Things happen at the table which the DM never planned for, and thus, has to pull something out of his hat and make it look like he knows what he is talking about. THAT is what spooks me about ever DMing a Con Game.
I’d feel like I was the one being judged, and stick to the rules to the very best of my ability. How do you handle somebody who doesn’t? Somebody who sucks the fun right out of the game?
Well, you stand up, pick up your books and invite everyone over to my place where we can play a quick game, you don’t have anything prepped, but it sure beats trying to squeeze fun from a rock. Make sure to invite the DM too, as apparently he needs to see what a game is suppose to feel like. Or I suppose if you can’t head on over to your place, then you could just rules lawyer the guy. Particularly with calls which are that bad. I mean, the XP split is bad enough, why ruin it even further? To slow, and unfair. Winning a game of Dungeons & Dragons???? WTF?
Ripper Xs last blog post..Add-In #004: The Office of Mazion the Leech
The only situation I’ve ever run across GMs like this is at GenCon, and unless my group can’t agree on how bad things are we take our default approach: all four of us walk out of the event. Life’s too short to fly hundreds of miles and then waste time playing in crappy games.
Were I new to the hobby and encountering folks like this, I’d politely walk out — or at the very least avoid those GMs in the future. Sites like NearbyGamers are good places to look for non-asshat GMs.
@Martin Ralya: I think part of the problem for a new player, at least from what I’m reading in what Heather is saying, is that new players don’t actually know that it’s the DM. They can’t differentiate between a bad DM and a bad rules set. Heather was able, to some degree, to recognize the problem, but most of her actually knowledge of how bad it was has come after the fact, as she’s been reading the rules (because she, thankfully, was willing to stick with it, ask around, and look over the rules for herself).
I think this is a lot of why people here (and I know that it’s my reason for it…) have been saying that “House rules have no place at this kind of event.” Especially for a new rule set.
I think the best way I can sum up my opinion on this matter is: “House rules belong in the house they’re made in. Thus the name.”
Walking out on the bad DM is pretty much attitude… Though, as I said, recognizing that can be difficult when you don’t the rule set and think about the fact that the problem may not lie with the DM, but with the rules.
I’m getting repetitive. Time for bed.
Good rules + bad DM = no fun for everyone.
If the rest of the group support the notion that they shud get XP for monsters tat they hit, then i wuld say she’s out of luck of having fun with these guys.
Some of the best advice that ppl usually give me is: ‘leave the group, find a group with a better DM,’ but tat doesn’t work in my context, haha!
but since she is learning the tricks on her own, I say go for it and start your own group!
Questing GMs last blog post..Worldwide Dungeons & Dragons Game Day
Phil, I have to agree the DMs handled things the wrong way. However, I wonder if the reaction isn’t a bit strong?
They may have a twisted perception of “realism” or whatever misguided notion they were operating under but that does not automatically make them trolls or stupid.
I think there’s a learning curve to being a DM, and it’s also dependant for many on where, why and how they started playing. Maybe they were somehow convinced this is *the* “correct” way to play a combat encounter?
The greatest fault of those DM was not the introduction of a rule (for no matter how silly one might think a house rule is, I guarantee I’ll find a group out there who thinks it makes perfect sense) but their failure to communicate, especially since this wasn’t with a regular group.
I think the waters are muddied because we’re judging them BOTH based on the house rule and the failure to communicate. The house rule is irrelevant. They could give halflings a +10 to STR for all I care, if that floats their boat.
What’s wrong with these DMs and the players is that they failed to establish a social contract before beginning to play. And unfortunately, once play had started, those guys were inflexible and there was a failure to communicate.
In all fairness to Fumbles and Bumbles, I do not think either really had any prep time. I do not think either had read any of the new rules, or really spent much time looking over the demo, in which case it would probably be a normal reaction to revert to what you know. (If we wanted somewhere to point a finger I guess it would have been helpful for the store owner to have sign ups vs just “come on in” and give signed up DMs the info early). The second DM (Fumbles) also had the challenge of knowing that 3/5 of his group already played that particular demo once, so he was required to improvise on the fly in order to make things a little different.
Heathers last blog post..D&D Nerdery – Kick Em When They’re Down
I think the most important point here is that this is WWDDGD, an event specifically designed to draw in new players and players of old systems to a new system they probably haven’t played yet. To that end, house rules should be completely verbotten.
For that matter, why were they even keeping track of exp? There’s not nearly enough to hit level 2 in that adventure, so it’s kind of silly.
On the other hand, if you’re running a con game with people who are expected to already be comfortable with the system, there’s no problem in using house rules (as long as your players know you’ll be doing so).
Incidentally, the fact that both DMs have such a bizarre house rule on exp suggests to me that they probably play in the same group regularly which uses that rule, so it obviously works for them.
Asmors last blog post..Setting Seeds: Rise of the Godlings
You started GMing with 3-4 games’ experience? I started with none and still haven’t played any as a player (after about 2 years)
@Consonant Dude –
We aren’t being harsh on them for any specific rules.
As Asmor said, we’re being harsh on them because
– they are running a game in a brand new ruleset
– everyone at the table is currently trying to learn the new ruleset
– everyone at the table is currently trying to decide whether to go to 4e or not
– at least one at the table is brand new to the game
In this situation, you need to run straight, vanilla rules. No house rules. The people at the table are trying to learn and decide on 4e, not your homebrew.
In addition, they never told them it wasn’t vanilla 4e.
In addition, at least one of the players wasn’t having fun with the house rules.
But the most important part remains that every one of them was there to learn and play 4e, and to decide on 4e. Nobody came to that event to play these guys’ homebrew.
In this situation, their greatest fault was indeed the introduction of a rule. Any rule. It doesn’t matter if their group loves it, this situation should be completely free of house rules, period.
Graham, I understand your point about learning 4e but the problem is, nobody can teach you about a 1000-page ruleset that has been released 24 hours ago, except the designers. Can a DM be expected to run 4e “straight” on such short notice without the game slowing to a crawl? I doubt it.
In fact, I’d go so far as saying regardless of when 4e was released, it’s difficult to expect a DM to play a perfectly standard game. I enthusiastically played and DMed D&D3 for eight years and it fascinated me to witness how different players and DMs handled things. Like when and how to use skills.
I do want to say once again, I am not defending those guys. I don’t think they communicated effectively. But I don’t expect “standard DMing” when I go play in someone’s game. I expect to be in good company, have fun and participate in the fun. Their failure, IMO, was due to not making things fun because of a disregard for the participants, not a disregard for the rules.
Honestly, one of the most attractive features of roleplaying game is their malleable nature. And DMing is a lot of work. I don’t see anything wrong with injecting some houserules in there. What’s amazing about RPGs is that they can work when you tweak them and they can even work if you don’t really know most of the rules. But you still need to be aware that everybody is supposed to have fun.
I think this is what happened to Heather. These two guys communicated poorly and the fun was affected. But the idea that a game (even on Game Day) should be played by the book, that we should adhere to rules in a dogmatic way doesn’t seem realistic. It’s a game session, not a class.
@CD: I understand and accept your counter points for the issue of Heather’s DM using defenses as Saving throws. That’s possibly a honest mistake.
But Fumbles and differential XP distribution are house rules… rules that are often associated with certain DMing philosophies.
@Consonant Dude:
“Can a DM be expected to run 4e “straight” on such short notice without the game slowing to a crawl?” To a pretty large degree, yes. While the “defenses” may have been a bit confusing, but the fact that they’re “10 + something” gives the impression, to most experienced DMs, that it represents a target number. Also, even in 3.x, there are almost no “Roll below this number” unless it’s expressed as a percentage (side note: my d100 is going to be sadly neglected in 4e 🙁 ). The fact that they’re called “Defenses” should also be a key indicator, as the word “saving throw” has been removed from their description (and moved to another use). I could potentially forgive the DMs for this one if they had the players rolling “Saving Throws” to end effects against their defenses.
Most of the rules are pretty straight forward, and with the exception of creature abilities, is very similar to 3.x where it’s not the same. Skill DCs were laid out in the adventure, with skill names, and skills are arguably the largest change to 4e (excepting, as I said, abilities) (at least from a DMs perspective).
I actually use fumbles in my 3.x campaign, but mostly because my players expect something. I do it a little differently, though… If they (or any creature) roll a 1, they make a DC 15 reflex save or attract an attack of opportunity from any adjacent opponent… It keeps things lively, without throwing things way out of whack. (I stole that from some website… If anyone wants to claim credit for it, go for it. I just don’t remember where I got it from.)
@Chatty: Yes, it does look like they imposed house rules.
I feel I need to backtrack because I have muddied the water a little bit by rambling. So please forgive me if I recap my thoughts, because I feel strongly about this issue.
I don’t dispute that the DMs may have had poor taste, or an agenda, or anything of this sort. And I think there is merit in discussing why they houseruled and if they should houserule.
But I still feel, reading Heather’s first post, that their cardinal sin was to not take the concerns of players at the table in consideration. The fact that at least one player (Heather) expressed concerns and that she was ignored is what I see as the main problem.
Why do I focus on that? Because I believe that a DM that disregards his/her players as individuals will ruin the fun, no matter how skilled he is at the rest of his craft. I’d rather bet my money on a DM who has his players’ best interests in mind and is struggling with the art of DMing.
In this case, it appears (I wasn’t there and can only guess based on what is described) that these DMs were both disregarding the rules and the people. I think the latter is much more depressing than the former and that the two don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.
Does that make more sense? 🙂
Just to clarify, I did have fun. In some cases, I just didn’t know any better. In others, I had read a good chunck of the handbook and suspected something wasn’t quite right. In many cases, I didn’t realize until much more recently that things were not necessarily supposed to be done the way they were. The fumbles rule was somewhat frustrating but also kind of funny. We were so busy trying to figure out wtf we were doing that there was little roleplaying – my fumbling dwarf created an opening for a little roleplay. The same was true of my crappy rolling cleric (he was having a crisis of faith).
I DID have issue with the XP thing. I thought the way they were handling it was stupid. I still think the way they handled it is stupid. I did actually ask why they were doing that and got some cocknbull story that I just let go because it was a single scenario and the XP really didn’t matter anyway.
The point in my posts are more to sort out the rules, DM styles, and general experience with Fumbles and Bumbles for myself as a learning tool in my own quest to become a DM.
Heathers last blog post..Nemesis
In all fairness to Fumbles and Bumbles, every time a new rule set comes out there is always something I get wrong for a couple months because I make assumptions or I just misread something. Let’s face it, the XP thing is stupid, but maybe they hadn’t played in a LONG time. (Remember when you used to get XP/gold piece?)
That is why I love having a rules lawyer in my group to straighten me out! It’s vitally important for a DM to listen to what their players want. Otherwise, why play if no one is having fun?
(BTW Chatty, I think the “Rule of Cool” and the “Rule of Fun” should be enshrined in a glittering tome somewhere. 🙂 )
The more I DM that more I shy away from house rules as I’ve found that they just create problems. They have their uses like clearing up a gray area or fixing something that you know is broken from experience. (3.0 edition Harm anyone?) But house ruling for its own sake just doesn’t make sense.
Ultimately, I think that if someone is playing in a game where the DM sucks, they should go find another DM. There are tons of people out there that just can’t fill a group and with online resources like Craig’s List and message boards, finding a new DM is easier than ever.
I think that for all intents and purposes, both rules are in D&D 4e.
The Rule of Fun is so strong that the game takes shortcut that is making some purist scream, the (lack of an) economy and magic item identification to name a few.
Just as a quick aside that I touch every so often. I read a lot of forums and blogs and I have to say that you are all a bunch of great people!
I have been doing this for 10 months now and I’m still amazed how low the jerk factor and how civil we keep things around here…
Things do get heated up and I do have my rantish days, but then I see the stupidities that others type on slashdot and other high volume and that makes me sigh in relief.
You. All. Rock!
Free clones for all!
@Greenvesper:
I tend to try to use Houserules to increase the fun… Or to make things challenging when they should be challenging… The best example of that last bit, for me, is making tumble to avoid attacks of opportunity an opposed check. It’s kind of silly that once you have a +15 in Tumble, you just make half moves and never need to worry about it again, no matter how good your opponent is. My players like it because it gives them a reason to roll again.
I think house rules have their place, but they need to be discussed before they’re implemented.
I figured I’d answer the OP and try not to flame the guys. Not that I agree with either rule, or their introduction into a demo event. 🙂
“Are they within their rights to impose their vision of the the game like that be it at a convention or with their buddies?”
Very much so. They’re as much within their rights to introduce house rules as you are to walk away. I’d say that it being a demo makes it both irresponsible and rude to use house rules, but I guarantee you they wholeheartedly believed they were improving the experience by “fixing” the game’s “flaws.”
“How do you deal with them when they are your DMs?”
It depends on where I’m at. If it’s at a convention and they’re a stranger, I’ll have fun and then leave. If the acts are so egregious that fun is impossible, I’ll make an excuse and leave. In both cases, I’ll probably want to berate them, but it’s not only pointless, it’s counterproductive. Wailing on someone is a sure way to make them think you’re the dumbass, and get them even more firmly set in the idea that they’re right and “some people just don’t have a clue.” You’ll make yourself feel happier, but you give up the opportunity to state your case rationally and hope it sinks in.
If they’re a friend, I’ll have fun. Even if the game sucks, I’m still hanging out with friends. Then, when an opportunity presents itself, I’ll offer to run a game and hopefully get a chance to show them my brand of “how it should be done.”.
“How do you deal with them when you hear them boast about thier ‘realistic’ house rules in game shops?”
The same way I deal with boasting jocks, accountants, and Star Wars fans: ignore it. They’re already convinced they’re right or they wouldn’t be preaching about their greatness in public. No amount of arguing is going to change their minds, and it’ll waste precious time that could be browsing for anew book.
@Consonant Dude –
their cardinal sin was to not take the concerns of players at the table in consideration.
Agreed. But this wasn’t their only cardinal sin.
I think we can sum up the problem that myself and others like this.
We don’t care that they used house rules.
We’re pissed off that they never told the players they were using house rules, instead attempting to pass off said rules as part of the core game.
Because of this, if one of their players was incredibly turned off by one of their house rules (the XP one, as a big one), they might never look at D&D again, because of the “stupid rules” it has.
We also don’t care if they messed up rules. This isn’t a problem, and we all do so with a new system. But these are not mistakes. They are purposeful additions or changes, yet are not explained as such.
So, sure, use house rules. But a release game should be as straight as possible. And all house rules need to be explained to the players as such.
@Graham: I totally agree with you!
I think we’re seeing the same problems and explaining them from different angles 🙂
@Heather: Glad you had fun despite the glitches! Didn’t know you were on a quest to become a DM. Hope you’ll share with us when it happens!
@Chatty: Yes indeed, this place is extremely friendly! I greatly enjoy the conversations around here. I’ve only recently begun to interact with bloggers and was amazed at how different the culture is compared to message boards. I think there’s a sense that people are closer, somehow. Forums feel more impersonal to me in comparison. This is what prompted me to start a gaming blog. I feel there is more mutuality and a greater investment with this medium.
Agreed, CD. I think that each of us has one part of the issue which we’re putting the most emphasis on.
@CD: I think part of the whole atmosphere thing is because a blog is centered around a core personality or team. When you comment on a blog, you more or less are participating in a living room discussion with the host.
A forum is (as the word means in greek) a public place, for more impersonal.
Some strongly supported forums have a great community. EnWorld and Okay…Youir turn to name just two… but the moderator’s presence are strongly felt.
With blogs, I think it is, greatly, the intersection of audience size and moderation policy.
If a blog has a relatively small audience (in the hundreds to low thousands) then pure social pressures work to keep the creeps from taking over. Unless you are talking about social justice issues, in which case trolls pop out of the wood work as soon as you hit about 50 readers. As you get into the thousands, you need a pretty strong moderation policy to keep things viable (See Boinbngboing’s assorted attempts to open comment threads on their blog. It didn’t really work until they hired Theresa Neils Hayden to act as their moderator. Without moderation, they start to look like the /. comment threads after a bit.
Michael Phillipss last blog post..Firefoxing
I could’ve sworn halflings did get a +10 to strength…
@The Reverend: That was in 2nd edition. That’s why everyone thought 3.x “sucked”: because halflings got “nerfed”. A lot of the old grognards never gave up 2nd because of it, and they’ll never play 4e because, despite the promises of WotC, that wasn’t fixed.
You just can’t please some people, you know?
Never did play 2nd…I’m just saying, all the halflings I ever played felt like they had +10 to strength, especially since I seem to always take up a fighter position in the party…and when I DM’d, my players grew to fear the halflings who weren’t on their side…gotta love the warmace…
Ah, well…my most remembered characters were medium-size or ibixians anyway…
They awarded XP according to who actually hit the monster. If you took a swing at the monster, you were awarded XP. If you did not take a swing at that particular monster because you were busy flanking another monster, you did not get XP for the monster you did not actually hit.
Gah, not only is that not in line with the RAW, but it is the sort of crap that either doesn’t work or slows the game down as the GM tracks yet another stupid pointless variable on reams and reams of paper. Mutter.
Michael Phillipss last blog post..Dialogues
Oy! that horrible, I can see that easily throwing people off and away.
My current group is mostly Skeptical about 4e, AND 3.5e, The answer I got about “what do you think about 3.5?” And the reply was “You get to powerful to fast, in our game we have to EARN our power.”
I still see no logic in that statement.
Power is DM controlled people.
/emote Shrug
Though I have hopes for some of the other players doing 4e, They even showed me their 4e PHB with a few bookmarks in it.
although its gonna be a 70’ish investment at most at start. (PHB, DMG, MM1) I like knowing my game. though Hopefully I can avoid becoming a horrible Rule lawyer.
-Casts Spell check.
Being registered with the RPGBAR isn’t a bad thing, so long as you’re good at it…nobody likes an asshole…
I have to admit being a DM is hard work. And when you first start out it seems like it will be the most fun. But it is a lot of work too. Some DM’s suck and others are great. Part of that I think is due to how the person was and RPGer to begin with.
Diane Brunners last blog post..Dungeon Siege: In The Nameof the King Review and Thoughts